Smithfield, a major producer of pork, is supposedly going to cut down its use of ractopamine in 50 percent of its operations. This drug, ractopamine, is a dangerous beta-agonist drug that has been banned or severely restricted in many countries. Apparently, by this move, Smithfield is trying to appease its foreign markets, Russia and China. However, like Monsanto, it does not seem to care about Americans.
Is Smithfield one of the many companies under the giant worldwide monopoly Monsanto? Incredibly why do anti-trust regulators ignore and protect Monsanto when it is obviously in violation of many anti-trust laws?
Is Smithfield one of the many companies under the giant worldwide monopoly Monsanto? Incredibly why do anti-trust regulators ignore and protect Monsanto when it is obviously in violation of many anti-trust laws?
Producers using ractopamine can earn anywhere between $2 and $6 more per head, which is nothing to squeal at. With financials like this, is the international market the only reason Smithfield will so willingly stop using ractopamine in 50% of its production? Perhaps there is another reason. Perhaps instead of ractopamine, Smithfield is simply substituting ractopamines evil and more potent twin, zilpaterol. If Smithfield is truly going ractopamine-free, it should confirm that it is also going zilpaterol-free, and not simply conducting a public messaging bait-and-switch.
For the complete article, please visit: Center for Food Safety | Blog | Smithfield, Americans Double-Hog-Dare You: Can You Prove Your "Ractopamine-Free" Claim Goes the Distance?